Tuesday, January 4, 2011

The NDP Are Basically Communists

So the thought of people in the NDP adopting any free-market policies is completely unhistorical. But I gotta admit, writing this post was a joy ride. I suggest everybody interested in this stuff go out and pick apart a political party. Show the world how anti-social these government things really are.

Show, don't tell, how unnecessary the State is.

A lot of Canadians like Jack Layton and the New Democratic Party, but a rational look at their economic platform clearly shows that this party is advocating the compete opposite of their intended goals:

Let's break this down one by one. For today, let's just deal with the economy.

Economy 1.1: Industrial Policy

1. Investing in job creation by developing a green economy with appropriate support for transition programs and for research and development

Unless taxes are voluntary, supporting research and development to build a green economy is wasteful. If individuals support these investments they can donate voluntarily.2. Establishing sector-specific policies tailored to industry needs, with emphasis on ensuring the longterm viability of our manufacturing sector, including automobile, aerospace, and shipbuilding industries

Essentially – propping up failed manufacturing businesses. This will only drain wealth from society. Manufacturing is 'dying' due to The State and their minions, (Corporations and Big Unions) meddling in the free voluntary market of wages and prices. If this 'support' was abandoned, then these manufacturing industries could restructure themselves to compete with international labour. Funneling wealth into these businesses will be a gain to those particular industries, but the rest of the country will be poorer as a result. There will always be a demand for manufacturing and without coercive measures, entrepreneurs can compete with cheap international labour rather than moving the business overseas.

3. Establishing “Buy Canadian” procurement policies and fostering Canadian ownership and control of our major sectors

This is a dangerous precedent as it encourages economic nationalism. The same tool used by fascist regimes in history. Simply put, these policies would inhibit the freedom of choice Canadians have. Whether a Canadian individual wants to buy goods from China, or goods made in Canada depends on what he or she values more. This is individual preference and having the State get involved in this private transaction borders on complete tyranny. Economic decisions that are best left to the individual consumer, but instead decided from the above, are the hallmark of socialist dictatorships.4. Developing “Made in Canada” products through secondary processing of our natural resources, thereby creating skilled, value-added jobs

Again, this involves the State controlling (to whatever extent) the means of production. As government revenue is a result of taxing private wealth, having the State create jobs like this is both inefficient and ineffective. 5. Targeting tax credits towards research and development and skills training to increase productivity and innovation in Canadian industry

Basically, these tax credits are supposed to help train Canadians for working in industry, and thus causing a resurgence of our manufacturing base. As already stated, the best cure for our manufacturing sector is competition free of State coercion. Education and training for developing skills is best left to the market, as the government has no way of planning what skills are more important than others.6. Investing in fair transition programs in key sectors where layoffs occur

Programs responsible for helping Canadians find work should be free of all government interference, and thus free of any bureaucratic headaches. Investing into these programs should rely on private donations. Whether the State should act as the “middle-man” or leave the entire process to the free market is an issue that can be debated. What cannot be ignored, however, is that these investments should be done voluntarily.7. Adopting social responsibility criteria for companies recognizing their responsibility to employees, the environment, community, consumers, and shareholders

Personally, I see this as a waste of resources. Companies have responsibilities unique to their situation. State coercion into these matters usually involve creating bureaucracies to regulate (and write) the criteria. The consumer votes with every purchase he or she makes. This alone results in the profit-and-loss model all private businesses operate on. Consumers decide what the companies responsibilities are. “Evil” companies that destroy the environment, treat workers poorly and sell shotty goods or services will suffer from consumers preference. Most Canadians, I would assume, prefer shopping at responsible businesses, therefore their individual choice regulates the social responsibility companies have. This is, and has been, far more efficient than any bureaucratic regulator.

I want to be reasonable and I want to be fair in my critique of the NDP's platform. But if proposals like this are to be seriously considered then we must remember their Marxist origins.9. Facilitating worker participation within companies to develop more democratic, transparent, and efficient workplaces.

And here we have the proposal for worker's councils, or “soviets” if we apply Russian terminology. Democratic workplaces would not create efficiency, as masses of workers would most likely fight for their immediate gain over the economics of running a business. Anyone who has worked in manufacturing knows full well that the office staff don't work on the floor and the workers on the floor don't work in the office. It's called the division of labour.

Economy 1.2 Resource Industries and Natural Resources

1. Supporting community development initiatives in the ownership, production, and control of primary industries

The NDP believe communities should own the means of production for resource based industries, and the natural resources themselves. To implement this policy there tends to be no other way short of nationalization. Then we are faced with a very real historical scenario: the State keeps these industries and resources under their control, claiming to represent “the people” or “the community” or "society."

Of course, there's the middle-of-the-road policy of just supporting these goals by direct funding. Either scenario involves an uncompensated appropriation of wealth by State coercion. And for no good reason other than the belief that primary industries should be owned by Canadian communities. In this sense, Canadian communities should pool their resources, time and effort into buying these industries on the market. It would be wrong for one individual to forcibly take over another individual's business, therefore it is wrong for the State (a collection of individuals) to forcibly take over industries.

Vertical integration, whether one agrees with it or not, is part of the market process. To discourage it is to violate the individuals right to own several businesses related to the ultimate production of consumer goods. The protection of smaller producers can be done through a variety ways. State coercion shouldn't be considered an option as it involves violence - the basic core of all State interactions.

3. Developing sustainable forestry practices, in conjunction with provinces and territories; and

Not a bad idea, but best left to private individuals. Charities, lotteries, non-for-profit groups, there are a variety of ways to protect the environment without State meddling. A strong emphasis on private property is the best way. As most of Canada's forests are owned by “the Crown”, a massive sell-off to many individuals would be the cheapest and most efficient way of protecting these resources.

4. Banning raw log exports to protect Canadian jobs.

This would, without a doubt, destroy Canadian jobs and the logging industry. Exports account for a large chunk of the Canadian economy. This protectionist policy is clearly harmful to the everyone and, once again, involves State coercion dictating to Canadians what they can or can't sell aboard.Economy 1.3 Physical Infrastructure and Transportation

1. Tackling the infrastructure deficit through a Canada-wide funding program that includes the enhancement of the Gas Tax Fund transfers to municipalities

Any talk of of the federal deficit is futile without discussing the Bank of Canada and the compound interest payments owed to, apparently, offshore banks. The Gas Tax, like all taxes, should be abolished.

2. Improving rail travel for both passengers and goods, and developing proposals for high-speed systems

Repelling taxes and regulation will make it more profitable for entrepreneurs to invest in more travel according to consumer preferences. If this in return creates high-speed rail systems, then so be it. If not, it is unproductive and immoral for the NDP to invest other people's money into a unprofitable venture.

3. Regulating airlines to ensure majority Canadian control of the industry

Regulation destroys profits, especially if the bureaucratic mandate was to ensure Canadian control of airlines, a meaningless pursuit as Canadian control differs slightly, if at all, from foreign ownership.

Scrap it. If Canadians like the idea of reserve funds for these purposes, then they can donate voluntarily to make this happen.5. Investing in public transport to improve our quality of life and help sustain the environment.

Privatizing current public transportation will improve the quality of the service and costs taxpayers nothing. Entrepreneurs will operate on a profit-and-loss basis therefore competing for the best service for the lowest cost. Bureaucracies are self-perpetuating and not tied to any market forces to make them accountable.Economy 1.4 Small and Medium-sized Businesses

1. Clarifying tax laws and succession rules to make it simpler for small and medium-sized businesses to fulfil [sic] tax obligations

Or the NDP could abolish all forms of taxation. Whatever government services the Canadian public find essential, they will donate their wealth voluntarily. Anything else if a form of theft. The phrase "tax obligations" is idiotic. If I broke into your house and stole half of your possessions, would you consider it your obligation to let me get away with it?

2. Enhancing technical and financial support through the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) and Community Futures Development Corporation (CFDC)

Businesses should be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits. State intervention will distort the market and allow unsuccessful businesses to continue operating, making it unfair for other successful businesses and unfair to the consumer. Consumers decide who succeeds and who fails, not arbitrary bureaucratic decisions.

Before interfering with financial institutions to “facilitate” capital, supporters of this measure have to realize that all credit is debt. Essentially what the NDP is proposing is more debt. Private loans represent the bank's belief that the borrower can make good on his payment. This is the risk financial institutions make when loaning out money. When the State makes loans it is doing so with other people's money, the same risks that the bankers must abide by are non-existent in bureaucratic decisions. When a loan is made in the "public sector" it deprives a borrower in the private sector, as the resources this loan is to acquire are scarce. If one cannot get a loan in the private sector, it is because he or she is too much of a risk. The US housing debacle is proof that the State ignores this risk.4. Protecting against unfair practices from financial institutions, large businesses, and foreign multinationals

This proposal is based off the myth that the State is there to “protect” society from the market of voluntary exchange. The “unfair practices” from financial institutions are clearly fractional-reserve banking, a process that favours larger businesses, including foreign multinationals and the State itself. The problem isn't the practice itself, however. The problem is the State sanction of banking according to rules written by the banks. In Canada a bank must be chartered and go through various regulations in order to function. The best way to “protect citizens” against financial institutions is to get the State out of banking altogether. Allow people to open up their own banks, regardless of reserve ratios or adherence to full-reserve banking. Allow competing currencies, including the freedom to transact in gold and silver. These measures will result in a greater choice of banking for Canadians. It is not a guarantee against bankruptcy, as all businesses can go bankrupt – but the freedom to choose from many banks (and the ease of starting your own) will discourage fraudulent practices like fractional reserve banking.

5. Providing incentives to promote value-added processing and innovation in emerging sectors; and

Value is subjective, that is to say, the worth of a good or service rests solely upon the individual. Purchases are made when both the consumer and producer see the transaction as a net-gain. One gives up time to produce the good, the other gives up money to purchase the good, but for both it's a net gain as they now have something they didn't have before. The non-coercive incentives of the free-market are the best way of creating innovation and filtering wealth-creating sectors from money losing projects. Emerging sectors, green technology for example, can be given a boost by private investments, for example the venture capitalists, or a group of small-time investors pooling their wealth together. The key is voluntarism over State coercion.

6. Improving access and eligibility for small business owners and the self-employed to social supports, such as Employment Insurance, re-training and skills development.

These perversions of the market always look like a good idea, but in actuality hurt the average person. Regardless of the immediate gains from EI, or funding for schools based on re-training and skills development – these policies boil down to State coercion. Force is required to carry out these goals, so unless the means of funding these policies are voluntarily donated, the basis of these “social services” is the threat and use of violence against the individual.

Economy 1.5 Jobs and Monetary Policy

1. Creating jobs by investing in the real economy and regulating speculators

As the State allocates resources according to what is politically viable, as opposed to the profit motive and innovative ideas of entrepreneurs – no efficient jobs can come from State intervention. For every job the “public sector” creates, jobs in the voluntary market never emerge. One must look not upon the immediate effects on one group, but the long-term effects on all groups. With that said, let's turn our attention to “regulating” speculators, assuming this means the bureaucracy in charge of this regulation will view speculators as harmful to the economy.

As Henry Hazlitt pointed out all those years ago in Economics in One Lesson, speculators have an important role in play in businesses, particularly farming. Whereas now the State pays farmers not to grow over a certain amount of food (in attempt to keep prices stable) the speculators keep farming profitable by their own involvement (and risk) that doesn't require State coercion and price-fixing.

2. Monetary policy that preserves and creates jobs and which strikes a balance between price stability and full employment

Here again, we have economic fallacies that involve the State providing "full" employment and price stability. History shows us that in heavily socialized countries, like those of old eastern Europe, recognize that this much State involvement in the economy destroys efficiency and discourages productivity.

Full employment means nothing if this comes from the barrel of a gun. The State could open up ditch-digging projects and hire all the unemployed, but as these jobs are useless (and wealth-destroying), the paychecks are merely a transfer of wealth from the private organization of individuals to a select few depend on government programs. Even jobs that are seemingly productive are wealth-destroying if provided by the State. The progress of civilization is toward less work for more efficient production. Maximum leisure time to enjoy the highest standard of living imaginable. Full-employment for the sake of full-employment is counter to these aims and ignores the fact that there will always be unemployment. Those in between jobs, those that refuse to work, and etc. There are a variety of reasons for unemployment and while State decree can reduce the number of unemployed, it cannot create meaningful jobs for the unemployed to go to.3. A Canadian currency and opposing moves toward a common North American currency

This is a popular position to take for voters who have unlocked the secret of money. The problem is, government fiat currency (with or without debt) will fail just as miserably as our current system, which is moving toward a common North American currency. The best option to take here is to legalize competing currencies and put money creation back into the hands of the voluntary market.

The most common modern-day economic fallacy is that of which is low interest rates. By approving of low interest rates policies the NDP is advocating massive debt loads and malinvestments in the economy. The manipulation of interest rates is the basis of the business cycle. I've wrote about this before.

5. Re-establishing the Economic Council of Canada to provide government with a source of neutral information and economic analysis.

Obviously, any organization that tracks economic analysis will arise from market conditions. “Neutral information” from either government or private business is an oxymoron. Therefore, the more private organizations analyzing the same economic data, the better, as this leads to a diversity in the field.

What constitutes a severe economic downturn or a national security emergency? If the NDP kept interest rates low for extended period, like they propose doing, then economic downturns will continue to plague the Canadian economy. Seeing deficits as the cure, rather than the disease is popular these days, but it's based on flawed economic logic. This position may sit well with an economic illiterate public, but it would destroy the Canadian economy if put into practice (which it already has been by the "Conservative" government).

2. Building a sustainable economy by reducing the debt to gross domestic product (GDP) ratio

As GDP measures spending, and all money comes into existence as debt, reducing the debt to GDP is a fool's game that will never bear fruition. Sure, there are ways to make it look like they're succeeding, but all in all the GDP is a meaningless State statistic.

3. Establishing fiscal reserves during times of surplus to help create investment opportunities; and

This is a great example of State policy that on the surface looks like it's benefiting all the people of Canada, yet in reality establishing these reserves require a forcible seizure of wealth from all individuals. A collective reserve for the benefit of all must be based off of voluntary relinquishing of wealth for future purposes.

4. The autonomy of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Scrap it, no one should receive this stolen wealth let alone analyze it. There are accountants in the free market, they can be hired by budgeting firms without the need for calling them “Officers” and putting them on State payroll.Economy 1.7 Progressive and Fair Taxation

1. A progressive tax system

This could be taken to mean, more taxes. Simply, a progressive theft system.2. Taxing capital gains at the same rate as salaries or wages

Theft on production to justify theft on salaries and wages.3. Ensuring that large profitable corporations pay a fair share of taxes; and

Profitable companies that create jobs will have more wealth stolen by the State.

4. Targeting tax reductions to help the middle class, working families, and the poor.

Theft reduction, but no talk of abandoning the act of theft itself.Economy 1.8 Financial Sector and Investments

1. Ensuring Canadian financial institutions are sufficiently capitalized and regulated to deal with crises and cyclical fluctuations

Considering the NDP haven't been able to sufficiently understand the basics of crises and cyclical fluctuations I don't trust their ability to deal with financial institutions by way of regulation. Then again, I don't trust statists to do anything beneficial for society.2. Limiting further bank mergers or mergers in other financial service industries

Coercion in the private business between private individuals.

3. Improving protection and support for credit unions, cooperatives and mutual companies

Favouring some companies over others. Not only does it require coercion, but it's impractical.

Another interference that violates the natural laws of economics and the immorality of using violence to attain ends.6. Protecting shareholders’ rights; and

Shareholders are voluntarily buying and selling shares based on the company of their choice. The risk lays on the individual, not the State or the taxpayer.7. Implementing new measures to protect workers’ pensions.

See above.

Economy 1.9 Agriculture and Fisheries

1. A comprehensive policy on food security and sovereignty

The best policy the NDP can come up with is virtually no policy at all. An emphasis on private property rights, not only on land but in lakes, rivers and ocean coast lines.2. Increasing support for the agricultural sector to produce quality products, ensuring long-term income for farmers, protecting small producers, promoting diversification, and ensuring fair prices for Canadian products internationally

One of the ways the NDP can do this, as this proposal is rather vague, is to repel the minimum wage. Allow farmers to hire farmhands on market wages, competing with the bigger farm businesses a lot of NDP supporters do not approve of.

These proposals are really overstepping their bounds now. If there's one area the State should stay out of, it's agriculture. The horrors of man-made famine in Communist China and the Soviet Union should be strong indicators against the bureaucratization of food production. What the NDP is proposing isn't bad, it's just that the State cannot provide this without using violence.4. Restoring the Canadian Wheat Board as the single desk marketer for wheat and barley

Monopolies are bad ideas. The NDP were previously derailing the expansion of vertical integration policies, but don't seem to mind the consolidation of power in the wheat and barley sector of the economy. When the State gets this big, all the contradictions and violence start to rear their ugly heads. There will be farmers that approve of the Canadian Wheat Board, but any farmer that chooses not to go through the Board will be breaking the law and be thrown in jail. The NDP proposes individual Canadians pointing guns at other individual Canadians and forcing them into the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board.5. Improving grain transportation through the Canadian Wheat Board with the involvement of prairie farmers

Again, using the monopoly power of the Canadian Wheat Board and the coercive arm of the State to dictate how farming will be practiced in Canada. Individual farmers should have a choice to opt out of this insane system, and choose not to pay for it.

6. Supporting supply management for commodity sectors

Support from the barrel of a gun. These proposals aren't necessarily bad, some of them sound helpful and many would agree to their ideas. But the State operates by using its monopoly on violence. This must be shown to people.

7. Reforming fishery regulation to protect small fish harvesters through co-management and community consultation to preserve stocks and ensure fairness in the allocation of licenses

There's a problem with overfishing, but the problem arises from lack of property rights in the water. Water itself is just moving land. The Tragedy of the Commons almost destroyed cow populations until property rights were established. The same can be done for fishing.

8. Tough laws against foreign over-fishing and the strengthening of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization

See above.

9. Increasing research and development in aquaculture and fish farming to develop more sustainable practices

Fish farming is a great way to cut back on our consumption of fish that are found in the wild. Funding for this can be raised voluntarily, as funding by force is theft.

10. Developing a West Coast Wild Salmon renewal program; and

See above, the solutions of over-fishing, including West Coast Wild Salmon, involves establishing strong private property rights in the lakes/rivers/oceans.

11. Supporting cooperatives as a model for producing, processing and marketing of agricultural and fishery products.

Co-operatives are just another way of running a business. Sometimes they are less efficient than their counterparts. Support for one way of production over another is fine if the support is voluntary. At the core of the State, however, is the use of force, which makes this proposal criminal in its intent.

Economy 1.10 The Public Sector

1. Promoting innovation and improving services and management within crown corporations and government agencies

Unless these crown corporations and government agencies start receiving their revenue from voluntary exchange and voluntary payments, then there can be no improvement. Bureaucracies are inherently inefficient, there is no way around this fact.

2. Protecting crown corporations against privatization

Why?

3. Improving the public sector’s role as a wealth creator and a major provider of jobs; and

This rests on the fallacy that the public sector can create wealth to begin with. Expanding State employment to be a major provider is the essence of socialism, particularly the kind that emerged in the USSR as the State encompassed more and more of the market. Simply put, the State does not have money of its own, it can only take from the private wealth of individuals, earned from the market of voluntary exchange.

Having the State as the major provider of jobs and falsely believing this to be "wealth-creating" is a dangerous, dangerous, dangerous precedent.

4. Halting public private partnerships (PPP) which are wasteful and inefficient models for delivering public services.

Agreed. Get the State completely out of the process and allow private partnerships to provide “public” services.

5. Opposing all forms of privatization and in supporting the delivery of all public services by public sector workers.

This is a dangerous proposal as privatization is the process of allowing individuals to exchange goods and services on a voluntary market. “Public” services and “public” sector have no real meaning other than State coercion taking wealth from all to give it to some. This is considered wrong, immoral and illegal on an individual to individual basis, therefore it must be viewed with the same illegality on a group to group basis. As there are no groups, just the individuals who make up the collective.

Economy 1.11 Community Economic Development and Cooperatives

1. Supporting cooperatives and social economy initiatives, including through working with regional development agencies to build new tools and models; and

The deeper we venture into NDP policies, the more socialist they become. This is not intended as a slam or an unfair portrayal. And I shouldn't be considered a “right-wing ideologue” just for pointing this out. I'm merely bringing the State to its logical conclusion and if the individuals of the NDP had State power and went through with all their initiatives, Canada would speed up on its road to socialism. More and more central planning objectives, like this one, would squeeze out private profit motives, reducing our competitiveness internationally and lowering living standards at home. Consider “social economy” the new buzzword for “socialist economy”

2. Establishing a ministry of Cooperative and Community Economic Development.

Well they're at it, the NDP might as well add the Ministry of Peace, the Ministry of Love, the Ministry of Plenty and the Ministry of Truth.

Economy 1.12 Our Rights as Workers

1. Protecting workers’ rights to join a union and bargain collectively, work safely and be free from harassment at work, receive fair wages and benefits, be treated with dignity at work, and have fair and equal opportunities for training and promotion

If there is one function of government, allow it to be this. Although personally I think insurance companies would be more humane than the coercive arm of the State. A look at modern-day Unions will clearly demonstrate why State coercion is a dangerous tool that does more harm than good.

2. Guaranteeing equal pay for work of equal value

As places of employment are chosen voluntarily, issues like equal pay and equal “value” are best left between the employer and employee, or employees bargaining collectively.3. Enforcing a fair minimum wage for all employees under federal jurisdiction and banning scab labour in all disputes under federal jurisdiction

Minimum wage is an arbitrary wage not tied to any market forces and enforced by violence. By enforcing this wage, and forbidding anyone to work below it, unemployment arises. Banning certain types of labour is another creator of unemployment.

4. Bankruptcy Act provisions that ensure workers’ wages, severance and pension funds take priority over all other creditors

There are many problems with State decrees concerning bankruptcy, and “solutions” such as this one will not solve these problems. In a free world, a worker signs a voluntary contract to work under an employer, if bankruptcy, severance and pensions are a major concern for the employee, he or she must work out the details before signing on the dotted line.

5. Employment Insurance provisions that provide workers with necessary benefits and training; and

Voluntary payment to charities or private insurance companies dealing with unemployed workers will not only be more efficient, but more humane than State coercion.

6. The development and availability of work-sharing and flexible work options in both the public and private sectors, for those employees who wish to do so.

All people have a right to work in whatever sector they please, as long as it doesn't harm individuals. With that said, clearly the State violates this natural law of non-aggression. The guarantee that workers have rights can't come from an institution that violates these rights.Economy 1.13 Our Rights as Consumers

I'll ignore the irony in having a non-competitive bureaucracy in charge of ensuring competition. The NDP wish to strengthen this bureaucracy rather than eliminate it. This is counter to consumer and producer freedom and strengthens the unaccountable bureaucrats reliant on the private wealth they are destroying.

One way to prevent “abusive rates” is to set a cap on how much the businesses can offer. This, however, makes things unprofitable and creates shortages of the good or service in question. The NDP prevention policy is looking at the immediate effects of one issue on several groups instead of the long term effects on all people.5. Protecting the travelling [sic] public by enacting an Airline Passenger Bill of Rights

It's hard to say where the NDP is going with this. It'd be better to allow airlines to enact their own “rights” as Canadians can always choose which airline they'd like to fly with. We are stuck with only one State.6. Expanding the authority of Health Canada to ensure the safety of imported consumer products, including through enhanced inspections; and

“Expanding the authority” simply means expanding the use of violence for whatever reason Health Canada deems important. We cannot fix our health-care problems by peaceful means when the State continues to wield power with weapons.

A consumer preference that will arise from the mass of consumers making economic decisions everyday. State coercion will be ineffective and costly.

And that's the NDP's economic plan for Canada. If you didn't agree before, I'm sure you will now -- The NDP are basically a bunch of communists. I'm surprised there wasn't a section about eliminating private property. I wouldn't put it past them, however. Almost every single economic policy depends on violating property rights, including the ultimate private property: the human body.